U.S. v. Simmons, 14cr2074-LAB. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180917957
Visitors: 3
Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . The Ninth Circuit has remanded this case for limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. Defendant Deandre Simmons pled guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1594 and was sentenced to 68 months' imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. Over three years later, he filed a 2255 motion arguing that the ten-year period of s
Summary: ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY LARRY ALAN BURNS , District Judge . The Ninth Circuit has remanded this case for limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability. Defendant Deandre Simmons pled guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1594 and was sentenced to 68 months' imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. Over three years later, he filed a 2255 motion arguing that the ten-year period of su..
More
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
LARRY ALAN BURNS, District Judge.
The Ninth Circuit has remanded this case for limited purpose of granting or denying a certificate of appealability.
Defendant Deandre Simmons pled guilty to conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594 and was sentenced to 68 months' imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. Over three years later, he filed a § 2255 motion arguing that the ten-year period of supervised release is unauthorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3583.
His motion is time-barred by over two years. He blamed his trial counsel for delays in filing his motion. But the reasons he gave had nothing to do with his lengthy delay. He knew what period of supervised release had been imposed as soon as he was sentenced, and he identifies no extraordinary factor that kept him from filing a motion within the limitations period. He is not entitled to tolling.
Simmons' claim also fails on the merits, for reasons set forth in the Court's order of August 2, 2018. A ten-year term of supervised release does not violate the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (authorizing imposition of supervised release for a period of between five years and life).
A certificate of appealability is DENIED. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
